I am beginning to dislike the series now. We should really stop praising Sigmund Freud. Yes, he was influential, yes, he made some beneficial contributions, but let us not kid ourselves with the Oedipus complex praise.
.

How is Evangelion praising Sigmund Freud?

<Snip>
I do admit some of his ideas have merit. I rather just not push the popular notion that his Oedipus complex theory holds any water at all.

But as Anno has also said about the Jewish and Christian imagery it doesn't mean anything and isn't meant to promote anything they just used it aa inspiration to make a really cool (and confusing) anime.

Allegedly, Hideaki Anno admitted that Shinji apparently does have an Oedipus complex, especially with regards to the the hostility between him and his father Gendo over Rei's well being.

Though this is just me decrying what I may inaccurately see as a concept of "Science" be misunderstood yet pervasive belief in popular culture, and perhaps general knowledge. Not sure. I really must ask what the general attitudes is to of the veracity to the Oedipus Complex theory.

Allegedly is a reference to an article cited by Wikipedia and other sources, yet published in Japanese, to which I am not literate in.

Except that's impossible since Shinji had no idea Rei was a clone of his mother.

Not sure how it is impossible. It may have been more of a coincidental irony of sorts, like the original myth of Oedipus, or the attraction stems from whatever similarity Shinji has associated with his mother.

I am beginning to dislike the series now. We should really stop praising Sigmund Freud. Yes, he was influential, yes, he made some beneficial contributions, but let us not kid ourselves with the Oedipus complex praise.
.

How is Evangelion praising Sigmund Freud?

<Snip>
I do admit some of his ideas have merit. I rather just not push the popular notion that his Oedipus complex theory holds any water at all.

But as Anno has also said about the Jewish and Christian imagery it doesn't mean anything and isn't meant to promote anything they just used it aa inspiration to make a really cool (and confusing) anime.

Allegedly, Hideaki Anno admitted that Shinji apparently does have an Oedipus complex, especially with regards to the the hostility between him and his father Gendo over Rei's well being.

Though this is just me decrying what I may inaccurately see as a concept of "Science" be misunderstood yet pervasive belief in popular culture, and perhaps general knowledge. Not sure. I really must ask what the general attitudes is to of the veracity to the Oedipus Complex theory.

Allegedly is a reference to an article cited by Wikipedia and other sources, yet published in Japanese, to which I am not literate in.

Except that's impossible since Shinji had no idea Rei was a clone of his mother.

Not sure how it is impossible. It may have been more of a coincidental irony of sorts, like the original myth of Oedipus, or the attraction stems from whatever similarity Shinji has associated with his mother.

Because an Oedipus complex refers to how a child interacts with a (known) parent. Now if you want to say it's closer to the Oedipus myth okay but even then it's still got a lot of differences. Anyway they're both pretty messed up.

I am beginning to dislike the series now. We should really stop praising Sigmund Freud. Yes, he was influential, yes, he made some beneficial contributions, but let us not kid ourselves with the Oedipus complex praise.
.

How is Evangelion praising Sigmund Freud?

<Snip>
I do admit some of his ideas have merit. I rather just not push the popular notion that his Oedipus complex theory holds any water at all.

But as Anno has also said about the Jewish and Christian imagery it doesn't mean anything and isn't meant to promote anything they just used it aa inspiration to make a really cool (and confusing) anime.

Allegedly, Hideaki Anno admitted that Shinji apparently does have an Oedipus complex, especially with regards to the the hostility between him and his father Gendo over Rei's well being.

Though this is just me decrying what I may inaccurately see as a concept of "Science" be misunderstood yet pervasive belief in popular culture, and perhaps general knowledge. Not sure. I really must ask what the general attitudes is to of the veracity to the Oedipus Complex theory.

Allegedly is a reference to an article cited by Wikipedia and other sources, yet published in Japanese, to which I am not literate in.

Except that's impossible since Shinji had no idea Rei was a clone of his mother.

Not sure how it is impossible. It may have been more of a coincidental irony of sorts, like the original myth of Oedipus, or the attraction stems from whatever similarity Shinji has associated with his mother.

Because an Oedipus complex refers to how a child interacts with a (known) parent. Now if you want to say it's closer to the Oedipus myth okay but even then it's still got a lot of differences. Anyway they're both pretty messed up.

I think Hideaki Anno does want to say something, but I do not think it is quite as literal as I appear to be claiming here. There could be a tiny bit of mystical coincidence at work here, not sure. With the psychological focus of the anime, I do tend to take the claims seriously, especially since its inception in the 90s, long past the days of Freud being taken seriously in some of his work.

Seriously, Freud was neurotic. Come to think of it, the castration aspect may apply to Shinji too.

I am beginning to dislike the series now. We should really stop praising Sigmund Freud. Yes, he was influential, yes, he made some beneficial contributions, but let us not kid ourselves with the Oedipus complex praise.
.

How is Evangelion praising Sigmund Freud?

<Snip>
I do admit some of his ideas have merit. I rather just not push the popular notion that his Oedipus complex theory holds any water at all.

But as Anno has also said about the Jewish and Christian imagery it doesn't mean anything and isn't meant to promote anything they just used it aa inspiration to make a really cool (and confusing) anime.

Allegedly, Hideaki Anno admitted that Shinji apparently does have an Oedipus complex, especially with regards to the the hostility between him and his father Gendo over Rei's well being.

Though this is just me decrying what I may inaccurately see as a concept of "Science" be misunderstood yet pervasive belief in popular culture, and perhaps general knowledge. Not sure. I really must ask what the general attitudes is to of the veracity to the Oedipus Complex theory.

Allegedly is a reference to an article cited by Wikipedia and other sources, yet published in Japanese, to which I am not literate in.

Except that's impossible since Shinji had no idea Rei was a clone of his mother.

Not sure how it is impossible. It may have been more of a coincidental irony of sorts, like the original myth of Oedipus, or the attraction stems from whatever similarity Shinji has associated with his mother.

Because an Oedipus complex refers to how a child interacts with a (known) parent. Now if you want to say it's closer to the Oedipus myth okay but even then it's still got a lot of differences. Anyway they're both pretty messed up.

I think Hideaki Anno does want to say something, but I do not think it is quite as literal as I appear to be claiming here. There could be a tiny bit of mystical coincidence at work here, not sure. With the psychological focus of the anime, I do tend to take the claims seriously, especially since its inception in the 90s, long past the days of Freud being taken seriously in some of his work.

Seriously, Freud was neurotic. Come to think of it, the castration aspect may apply to Shinji too.

I think it says more about Anno and his relationship with his father than anything about Freud, if movies and TV have taught me anything about writers/directors it's that they write/direct from experience. Based on their movies between Alfred Hitchcock and George Lucas can you guess which one didn't get along with his father and which one didn't get along with his mother? Heck throw Seth McFarlane in there too just for fun LOL

PeripheralVisionarywrote:
I think Hideaki Anno does want to say something, but I do not think it is quite as literal as I appear to be claiming here. There could be a tiny bit of mystical coincidence at work here, not sure. With the psychological focus of the anime, I do tend to take the claims seriously, especially since its inception in the 90s, long past the days of Freud being taken seriously in some of his work.

Seriously, Freud was neurotic. Come to think of it, the castration aspect may apply to Shinji too.

The working in of Freudian themes is done with such care that I think it is probably another stylistic device, similar to the Judeo-Christian naming conventions, rather than an endorsement of Freudian psychology.

That said, I think there may be something to the Oedipus complex in real life.
Allegedly men seek out women who remind them of their mothers.

kkmenchiwrote:
I think it says more about Anno and his relationship with his father than anything about Freud, if movies and TV have taught me anything about writers/directors it's that they write/direct from experience. Based on their movies between Alfred Hitchcock and George Lucas can you guess which one didn't get along with his father and which one didn't get along with his mother? Heck throw Seth McFarlane in there too just for fun LOL

I wondered the same thing myself after watching Evanglion. A few years ago I watched an episode of an NHK show that interviewed Anno and arranged for him to talk to kids at his hometown elementary school, which is full of classic 90's Anno moments.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh0qbJAQhgk
They also arranged for the kids to interview Anno's parents. They seem to be proud he had artistic talent at a young age but the only telling moment that might hint at the nature of his relationship with his father begins at around the 20:25 mark.

PeripheralVisionarywrote:
I think Hideaki Anno does want to say something, but I do not think it is quite as literal as I appear to be claiming here. There could be a tiny bit of mystical coincidence at work here, not sure. With the psychological focus of the anime, I do tend to take the claims seriously, especially since its inception in the 90s, long past the days of Freud being taken seriously in some of his work.

Seriously, Freud was neurotic. Come to think of it, the castration aspect may apply to Shinji too.

The working in of Freudian themes is done with such care that I think it is probably another stylistic device, similar to the Judeo-Christian naming conventions, rather than a case of Freud used to inform the psychologies of the characters.

That said, I think there may be something to the Oedipus complex in real life.
Allegedly men seek out women who remind them of their mothers.

kkmenchiwrote:
I think it says more about Anno and his relationship with his father than anything about Freud, if movies and TV have taught me anything about writers/directors it's that they write/direct from experience. Based on their movies between Alfred Hitchcock and George Lucas can you guess which one didn't get along with his father and which one didn't get along with his mother? Heck throw Seth McFarlane in there too just for fun LOL

I wondered the same thing myself after watching Evanglion. A few years ago I watched an episode of an NHK show that interviewed Anno and arranged for him to talk to kids at his hometown elementary school, which is full of classic 90's Anno moments.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh0qbJAQhgk
They also arranged for the kids to interview Anno's parents. They seem to be proud he had artistic talent at a young age but the only telling moment that might hint at the nature of his relationship with his father begins at around the 20:25 mark.

Not quite sure that was a specific aspect of his actual theory for the Oedipus complex; it could be a loose coincidental factor tying into the idea of childhood that he also hypothesized. I also have to look up the veracity of the claim. There are plenty of misconceptions in the field of clinical psychology, and especially so.

In any case, stylistic aside, I just don't care for relating nonsense psychology from the early 20th century anymore than just "something cool". Freud as a whole generally lacked any modern credence with many of his ideas for a reason. Most were a product of an addled cynic with too intent a focus on sexuality and destruction. The backlash into behaviorism and its progeny occurred due to the need for more empiricism in the field of psychology, where Freud and many others failed to provide.

I just dislike how many people not sufficiently familiar with Freud continue to jack him off like a saint. He was influential, but was he right? There is little proof to his more ostentatious claims.

The Judeo-Christian terminology and names used is something I have a sore spot with, if but I feel we overly estimate the "symbolism" in Evangelion as anything more than "rule of cool". I also happen to dislike abstract symbolism in general, and find many works not willing to communicate their views trenchantly in lieu of symbolism to usually be pretentious garbage. When one puts the audience in the role of postulating the meaning of recurring symbols, the answer should already be honest. The author isn't communicating anything, they are simply being naive or lazy hacks that do not know what to say, and therefor foist the responsibility of determining the message to the audience. Essentially, the audience has to choose what this motif or symbol is trying to say, rather than the author communicating a message, which in turn has the audience trying to walk away to decide how they value the message.

If an author left the message to be determined by the reader, than I believe there is no message. It is just an invitation to an egotistical circle jerk.

I think the series is great in many other ways, to be quite honest. Not saying this is about everyone, this is just my own view on literature.

PeripheralVisionarywrote:
I think Hideaki Anno does want to say something, but I do not think it is quite as literal as I appear to be claiming here. There could be a tiny bit of mystical coincidence at work here, not sure. With the psychological focus of the anime, I do tend to take the claims seriously, especially since its inception in the 90s, long past the days of Freud being taken seriously in some of his work.

Seriously, Freud was neurotic. Come to think of it, the castration aspect may apply to Shinji too.

The working in of Freudian themes is done with such care that I think it is probably another stylistic device, similar to the Judeo-Christian naming conventions, rather than a case of Freud used to inform the psychologies of the characters.

That said, I think there may be something to the Oedipus complex in real life.
Allegedly men seek out women who remind them of their mothers.

kkmenchiwrote:
I think it says more about Anno and his relationship with his father than anything about Freud, if movies and TV have taught me anything about writers/directors it's that they write/direct from experience. Based on their movies between Alfred Hitchcock and George Lucas can you guess which one didn't get along with his father and which one didn't get along with his mother? Heck throw Seth McFarlane in there too just for fun LOL

I wondered the same thing myself after watching Evanglion. A few years ago I watched an episode of an NHK show that interviewed Anno and arranged for him to talk to kids at his hometown elementary school, which is full of classic 90's Anno moments.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh0qbJAQhgk
They also arranged for the kids to interview Anno's parents. They seem to be proud he had artistic talent at a young age but the only telling moment that might hint at the nature of his relationship with his father begins at around the 20:25 mark.

Not quite sure that was a specific aspect of his actual theory for the Oedipus complex; it could be a loose coincidental factor tying into the idea of childhood that he also hypothesized. I also have to look up the veracity of the claim. There are plenty of misconceptions in the field of clinical psychology, and especially so.

In any case, stylistic aside, I just don't care for relating nonsense psychology from the early 20th century anymore than just "something cool". Freud as a whole generally lacked any modern credence with many of his ideas for a reason. Most were a product of an addled cynic with too intent a focus on sexuality and destruction. The backlash into behaviorism and its progeny occurred due to the need for more empiricism in the field of psychology, where Freud and many others failed to provide.

I just dislike how many people not sufficiently familiar with Freud continue to jack him off like a saint. He was influential, but was he right? There is little proof to his more ostentatious claims.

The Judeo-Christian terminology and names used is something I have a sore spot with, if but I feel we overly estimate the "symbolism" in Evangelion as anything more than "rule of cool". I also happen to dislike abstract symbolism in general, and find many works not willing to communicate their views trenchantly in lieu of symbolism to usually be pretentious garbage. When one puts the audience in the role of postulating the meaning of recurring symbols, the answer should already be honest. The author isn't communicating anything, they are simply being naive or lazy hacks that do not know what to say, and therefor foist the responsibility of determining the message to the audience. Essentially, the audience has to choose what this motif or symbol is trying to say, rather than the author communicating a message, which in turn has the audience trying to walk away to decide how they value the message.

If an author left the message to be determined by the reader, than I believe there is no message. It is just an invitation to an egotistical circle jerk.

I think the series is great in many other ways, to be quite honest. Not saying this is about everyone, this is just my own view on literature.

Whoa, whoa...whoa, whoa dude, save that over analysis crap for your discussions with auroaraloose. You're asking for waaay too much out of this stuff, anime is a low budget primarily visual medium that borrows heavily from other pop entertainment because the makers don't have the time or the money to make up anything original. Evangelion is unique only in that the themes and motifs it borrowed allowed so many people to read what they wanted into it because it was familiar and relatable but still confusing and mysterious. In other words they just got lucky and it's not any deeper than that. Just like Lucas borrowed from every pop and sci fi theme he could think of and then later tried to pretend it was this deeper Joseph Campbell-esque hero's journey after it became popular, Anno has done the same thing with the "myth" of the meaning of Evangelion. They didn't know these things would be popular beforehand but once they exceeded all expectations they had to make up all these bs reasons for why it's so great. So Evangelion is in no way shape or form promoting Freud or his ideas, you know why? They never mention him so how would anyone connect the two? It's all bs made up later. Same with the Judeo-Christian imagery, they have a lot of end of world apocalyptic imagery so why not make they're jobs easier and "borrow" it. Then later explain how they brilliantly designed everything. LOL

They do mention the LCL in the entry plug is similar to amniotic fluid.

sooo which version of the eva series does this? I stopped watching after the original series and movies and honestly I don't even consider the movies part of the series since they were written so much later and seem to be a big middle finger to fans - and I also was quite satisfied with the ending of the first series.

To directly respond to the first poster - I think as others have said it is because they are traumatized so much they do not. The characters can be seen as each representing a different emotional disease. All really suffer some form of ptsd I think. This makes forming any kind of relationship difficult. That said they do develop some kind of bond I think but it is necessarily an odd one.

PeripheralVisionarywrote:
I think Hideaki Anno does want to say something, but I do not think it is quite as literal as I appear to be claiming here. There could be a tiny bit of mystical coincidence at work here, not sure. With the psychological focus of the anime, I do tend to take the claims seriously, especially since its inception in the 90s, long past the days of Freud being taken seriously in some of his work.

Seriously, Freud was neurotic. Come to think of it, the castration aspect may apply to Shinji too.

The working in of Freudian themes is done with such care that I think it is probably another stylistic device, similar to the Judeo-Christian naming conventions, rather than a case of Freud used to inform the psychologies of the characters.

That said, I think there may be something to the Oedipus complex in real life.
Allegedly men seek out women who remind them of their mothers.

kkmenchiwrote:
I think it says more about Anno and his relationship with his father than anything about Freud, if movies and TV have taught me anything about writers/directors it's that they write/direct from experience. Based on their movies between Alfred Hitchcock and George Lucas can you guess which one didn't get along with his father and which one didn't get along with his mother? Heck throw Seth McFarlane in there too just for fun LOL

I wondered the same thing myself after watching Evanglion. A few years ago I watched an episode of an NHK show that interviewed Anno and arranged for him to talk to kids at his hometown elementary school, which is full of classic 90's Anno moments.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh0qbJAQhgk
They also arranged for the kids to interview Anno's parents. They seem to be proud he had artistic talent at a young age but the only telling moment that might hint at the nature of his relationship with his father begins at around the 20:25 mark.

Not quite sure that was a specific aspect of his actual theory for the Oedipus complex; it could be a loose coincidental factor tying into the idea of childhood that he also hypothesized. I also have to look up the veracity of the claim. There are plenty of misconceptions in the field of clinical psychology, and especially so.

In any case, stylistic aside, I just don't care for relating nonsense psychology from the early 20th century anymore than just "something cool". Freud as a whole generally lacked any modern credence with many of his ideas for a reason. Most were a product of an addled cynic with too intent a focus on sexuality and destruction. The backlash into behaviorism and its progeny occurred due to the need for more empiricism in the field of psychology, where Freud and many others failed to provide.

I just dislike how many people not sufficiently familiar with Freud continue to jack him off like a saint. He was influential, but was he right? There is little proof to his more ostentatious claims.

The Judeo-Christian terminology and names used is something I have a sore spot with, if but I feel we overly estimate the "symbolism" in Evangelion as anything more than "rule of cool". I also happen to dislike abstract symbolism in general, and find many works not willing to communicate their views trenchantly in lieu of symbolism to usually be pretentious garbage. When one puts the audience in the role of postulating the meaning of recurring symbols, the answer should already be honest. The author isn't communicating anything, they are simply being naive or lazy hacks that do not know what to say, and therefor foist the responsibility of determining the message to the audience. Essentially, the audience has to choose what this motif or symbol is trying to say, rather than the author communicating a message, which in turn has the audience trying to walk away to decide how they value the message.

If an author left the message to be determined by the reader, than I believe there is no message. It is just an invitation to an egotistical circle jerk.

I think the series is great in many other ways, to be quite honest. Not saying this is about everyone, this is just my own view on literature.

Whoa, whoa...whoa, whoa dude, save that over analysis crap for your discussions with auroaraloose. You're asking for waaay too much out of this stuff, anime is a low budget primarily visual medium that borrows heavily from other pop entertainment because the makers don't have the time or the money to make up anything original. Evangelion is unique only in that the themes and motifs it borrowed allowed so many people to read what they wanted into it because it was familiar and relatable but still confusing and mysterious. In other words they just got lucky and it's not any deeper than that. Just like Lucas borrowed from every pop and sci fi theme he could think of and then later tried to pretend it was this deeper Joseph Campbell-esque hero's journey after it became popular, Anno has done the same thing with the "myth" of the meaning of Evangelion. They didn't know these things would be popular beforehand but once they exceeded all expectations they had to make up all these bs reasons for why it's so great. So Evangelion is in no way shape or form promoting Freud or his ideas, you know why? They never mention him so how would anyone connect the two? It's all bs made up later. Same with the Judeo-Christian imagery, they have a lot of end of world apocalyptic imagery so why not make they're jobs easier and "borrow" it. Then later explain how they brilliantly designed everything. LOL

You sir are very very wrong. I do not agree with all of this analysis but shows like Lain, Eva, and Ghost in the Shell are very much literature and stand up to discussion of themes like any other medium. I also would disagree that anime is "low budget primary visual medium". Eva for example has rich character dialog and do not forget that many anime now come from novels. But even if it is true that it is primary visual that doesn't make it without meaning. Look at modern and classic visual and sculpture art and how rich with meaning those are. Or plays which are also arguably mostly visual.

One of the best parts of anime is how it tackles real themes and is more thought provoking than 99% of western entertainment. Not true about many modern moe crap shows - but older ones like Eva, yes there is definitely something there.

PeripheralVisionarywrote:
I think Hideaki Anno does want to say something, but I do not think it is quite as literal as I appear to be claiming here. There could be a tiny bit of mystical coincidence at work here, not sure. With the psychological focus of the anime, I do tend to take the claims seriously, especially since its inception in the 90s, long past the days of Freud being taken seriously in some of his work.

Seriously, Freud was neurotic. Come to think of it, the castration aspect may apply to Shinji too.

The working in of Freudian themes is done with such care that I think it is probably another stylistic device, similar to the Judeo-Christian naming conventions, rather than a case of Freud used to inform the psychologies of the characters.

That said, I think there may be something to the Oedipus complex in real life.
Allegedly men seek out women who remind them of their mothers.

kkmenchiwrote:
I think it says more about Anno and his relationship with his father than anything about Freud, if movies and TV have taught me anything about writers/directors it's that they write/direct from experience. Based on their movies between Alfred Hitchcock and George Lucas can you guess which one didn't get along with his father and which one didn't get along with his mother? Heck throw Seth McFarlane in there too just for fun LOL

I wondered the same thing myself after watching Evanglion. A few years ago I watched an episode of an NHK show that interviewed Anno and arranged for him to talk to kids at his hometown elementary school, which is full of classic 90's Anno moments.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh0qbJAQhgk
They also arranged for the kids to interview Anno's parents. They seem to be proud he had artistic talent at a young age but the only telling moment that might hint at the nature of his relationship with his father begins at around the 20:25 mark.

Not quite sure that was a specific aspect of his actual theory for the Oedipus complex; it could be a loose coincidental factor tying into the idea of childhood that he also hypothesized. I also have to look up the veracity of the claim. There are plenty of misconceptions in the field of clinical psychology, and especially so.

In any case, stylistic aside, I just don't care for relating nonsense psychology from the early 20th century anymore than just "something cool". Freud as a whole generally lacked any modern credence with many of his ideas for a reason. Most were a product of an addled cynic with too intent a focus on sexuality and destruction. The backlash into behaviorism and its progeny occurred due to the need for more empiricism in the field of psychology, where Freud and many others failed to provide.

I just dislike how many people not sufficiently familiar with Freud continue to jack him off like a saint. He was influential, but was he right? There is little proof to his more ostentatious claims.

The Judeo-Christian terminology and names used is something I have a sore spot with, if but I feel we overly estimate the "symbolism" in Evangelion as anything more than "rule of cool". I also happen to dislike abstract symbolism in general, and find many works not willing to communicate their views trenchantly in lieu of symbolism to usually be pretentious garbage. When one puts the audience in the role of postulating the meaning of recurring symbols, the answer should already be honest. The author isn't communicating anything, they are simply being naive or lazy hacks that do not know what to say, and therefor foist the responsibility of determining the message to the audience. Essentially, the audience has to choose what this motif or symbol is trying to say, rather than the author communicating a message, which in turn has the audience trying to walk away to decide how they value the message.

If an author left the message to be determined by the reader, than I believe there is no message. It is just an invitation to an egotistical circle jerk.

I think the series is great in many other ways, to be quite honest. Not saying this is about everyone, this is just my own view on literature.

Whoa, whoa...whoa, whoa dude, save that over analysis crap for your discussions with auroaraloose. You're asking for waaay too much out of this stuff, anime is a low budget primarily visual medium that borrows heavily from other pop entertainment because the makers don't have the time or the money to make up anything original. Evangelion is unique only in that the themes and motifs it borrowed allowed so many people to read what they wanted into it because it was familiar and relatable but still confusing and mysterious. In other words they just got lucky and it's not any deeper than that. Just like Lucas borrowed from every pop and sci fi theme he could think of and then later tried to pretend it was this deeper Joseph Campbell-esque hero's journey after it became popular, Anno has done the same thing with the "myth" of the meaning of Evangelion. They didn't know these things would be popular beforehand but once they exceeded all expectations they had to make up all these bs reasons for why it's so great. So Evangelion is in no way shape or form promoting Freud or his ideas, you know why? They never mention him so how would anyone connect the two? It's all bs made up later. Same with the Judeo-Christian imagery, they have a lot of end of world apocalyptic imagery so why not make they're jobs easier and "borrow" it. Then later explain how they brilliantly designed everything. LOL

You sir are very very wrong. I do not agree with all of this analysis but shows like Lain, Eva, and Ghost in the Shell are very much literature and stand up to discussion of themes like any other medium. I also would disagree that anime is "low budget primary visual medium". Eva for example has rich character dialog and do not forget that many anime now come from novels. But even if it is true that it is primary visual that doesn't make it without meaning. Look at modern and classic visual and sculpture art and how rich with meaning those are. Or plays which are also arguably mostly visual.

One of the best parts of anime is how it tackles real themes and is more thought provoking than 99% of western entertainment. Not true about many modern moe crap shows - but older ones like Eva, yes there is definitely something there.

Ghost in the Shell IS literature and I didn't say they couldn't be discussed and I would say Lain IS deeper than Eva (it was meant to be) but still "borrowed" from other things just as much as Eva. Also Lain and Eva are two of the rarer anime that AREN'T based on a manga, LN, video game, etc. giving the makers more creative freedom in designing the look.
IF it's primarily visual? Show me a non visual anime We aren't discussing sculpture and plays, we're discussing anime. Just because something is thought provoking to YOU doesn't mean it was to everyone or that is was meant to be